Iran's nuclear plans: The New York Times doesn't seem to notice

The headline is easily understood.

VOTE FOR RAFSANJANI AND WE WILL HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS, SAYS RELIGIOUS LEADER

And the article that follows speaks for itself.

Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani, a representative of Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in Iranian Azerbaijan, has no doubts as to who to vote for in the next presidential elections on 17 June. "You need to vote for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani," said Hasani. "This way we will finally be able to have for ourselves the atomic bomb to fairly stand up to Israeli weapons," said Hasani.

"Freedom, democracy and stupidities of this type cannot be carried over to any part, and these concepts are out of sync with the principles of Islam," said Hasani, the ima
m who led Friday prayers in the main city of western Iranian Azerbaijian.

"Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand and I don't see why now we have changed attitudes and talk with the other civilizations."

Here's the link.

If you've followed events in Iran since the mullahs came to power, you know the imam is saying what Iran's ruling leaders mean to do: Go nuclear.

Yet, The New York Times doesn't seem to notice. In a lengthy article (Across Iran, Nuclear Power Is a Matter of Pride, May 29), we read nothing about Iran using nuclear weapons to "stand up to Israel" and Islam speaking with "the sword in the hand."

Instead, we're served this opening paragraph:

From nuclear negotiators to student dissidents, from bazaar merchants to turbaned mullahs, Iranians agree: the right to develop nuclear power is a point of national pride.

And further down:

(It's) clear that Iran's attachment to nuclear development is rooted in its own tumultuous history. The Islamic republic is trying to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to end the varying degrees of international isolation it has been forced to endure since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The nuclear standoff also echoes an older fight: Iran's colonial struggle to control its oil resources, which it eventually wrestled away from the British. Some reach further back, reflecting a desire to revive the glory of ancient Persia. Others want to claim Iran's future, to prove that the Islamic revolution can overcome its reputation for abysmal management.

Doesn't anyone at the Times take Iran's leaders seriously?

(Thanks to littlegreenfootballs.com for the link to the imam's remarks.)